Location data allegedly tracked a phone along the path of Robert Grove’s truck before recorded calls raised questions about destroyed evidence.
MEMPHIS, Tenn. — The break in the investigation did not come from a reported confession or a witness publicly identifying a gunman. According to court records, it came from a phone number that investigators said appeared in the same places and at the same times as a missing man’s vehicle and the garage where his body was later found.
That digital trail eventually led Memphis police to a 17-year-old boy charged with first-degree murder and especially aggravated robbery in the death of Robert Grove, 33. It also led investigators to recorded conversations involving the boy’s mother, Bridgit A. Riley, who is accused of helping eliminate evidence after the killing. Riley, 47, faces charges of tampering with evidence and being an accessory after the fact to first-degree murder. Both were arrested July 6, more than eight months after Grove vanished.
The electronic evidence sits at the center of the prosecution’s early account, but it is only one part of a broader circumstantial case described in an arrest affidavit. Police also cited surveillance video, blood found in Grove’s Chevrolet Avalanche, photographs allegedly stored on the teenager’s phone and calls in which Riley reportedly discussed the device. The records available to the public do not establish how each item will be authenticated or challenged in court, and the allegations have not been proved at trial.
Grove was reported missing Oct. 27, 2025. His family said he left home at about 11:30 p.m. the night before but did not return. Relatives expected him to take his mother to work and help care for his 1-year-old child. When he failed to appear, family members began looking for him and his truck. The search brought them to the Surrey Apartments, where they located the Avalanche in the complex’s parking lot.
Inside, relatives found what appeared to be a large quantity of blood on the driver’s-side floorboard. Two empty phone cases belonging to Grove were on the ground close to the truck. His phones were not with them. Those details immediately created two related investigative problems: detectives needed to determine what had happened inside the vehicle, and they needed to identify where Grove and his devices had traveled after he left home.
Apartment surveillance cameras provided fixed points in the timeline. According to the affidavit, the Avalanche entered the complex at about 12:25 a.m., left approximately four minutes later and returned at about 1:09 a.m. No video cited in the court account showed Grove walking away from the vehicle. A thin male with different physical characteristics was instead seen getting out and leaving on foot after the truck returned.
That footage could show when the vehicle moved, but it could not by itself identify every person inside or explain what occurred beyond the camera’s view. Detectives therefore pursued cellphone records. Grove’s iPhone had last been tracked to the Egypt Central Road area, and officers searched there Nov. 2. They found his body in a detached garage. Authorities said he had an apparent gunshot wound to the head, and investigators recovered spent cartridge casings nearby.
Police then sought warrants for data that could identify mobile devices present near two important locations: the Surrey Apartments and the garage. The affidavit did not provide a complete technical description of the records obtained, the size of the geographic areas searched or the precision of each location point. Such details could become important if defense lawyers challenge the scope, reliability or interpretation of the information. On Feb. 16, investigators received what they called a match. A number assigned to a 17-year-old boy showed activations that police said were consistent with the travel pattern of Grove’s Avalanche and with the site where his body was recovered. Reports based on the filing identified the teenager as a student at Raleigh-Egypt High School. Because he is a juvenile, authorities have not publicly released his name.
Location data can place a device within a given area, but it does not automatically establish who was carrying it at every moment. The affidavit’s claim is that the records contributed to a larger pattern rather than standing alone. The public accounts do not say whether investigators also obtained messages, application data, photographs with embedded location information or records showing communication between Grove and the teenager before Grove disappeared.
Security officers at the teenager’s school detained him April 29 and brought him to investigators. He declined to answer questions. That choice is protected by law and cannot by itself be treated as evidence that he committed a crime. Police did not arrest him that day, according to the reported chronology. Instead, the investigation continued as detectives examined communications involving Riley and someone in custody.
Recorded jail calls cited in the affidavit allegedly contained references to photographs of Riley’s son inside Grove’s vehicle. The public record does not specify who took the pictures, when they were made or what else appeared in them. Authorities have also not said whether the files were recovered from a cloud account, copied before the original device disappeared or viewed by another person who later described them to investigators.
The discussions about the phone were more direct, according to police. Riley allegedly spoke about destroying the device and possibly traveling to another country. A later conversation involving a replacement phone with the same number reportedly included a statement that a new Apple ID had been created. The old phone was said to be gone, and someone allegedly indicated that it had been smashed and thrown into the Mississippi River.
Investigators have not publicly confirmed whether anyone searched the river or recovered pieces of the device. Nor have authorities released the full recordings, meaning the context and exact wording beyond the excerpts described in reports are not available for independent review. Riley will have an opportunity through her attorney to contest the state’s interpretation, the identity of the speakers and whether any discussion amounted to criminal assistance.
The evidence-tampering accusation focuses on an alleged effort to impair the availability of material that could be used in an investigation. The accessory charge is separate from the murder allegation against Riley’s son. Prosecutors allege that she acted after the homicide to help him avoid responsibility; the currently available records do not accuse her of being present for the shooting or participating in the alleged robbery. That distinction is central to understanding the two cases.
The boy was charged with first-degree murder and especially aggravated robbery. Police have not publicly identified the property they say was taken or described the factual basis for the robbery count. The reported court records also leave open whether the shooting occurred inside the garage, inside the Avalanche or somewhere else. The blood in the truck and the later discovery of Grove’s body establish two crime scenes or evidence locations, but the precise sequence remains part of the pending investigation.
Riley was initially held in the Shelby County Jail on a $10,000 bond. Reports issued soon after her arrest said her next court appearance was scheduled in July, but a full current docket and any subsequent rulings were not available in the reviewed public reports. Authorities also had not publicly announced whether the teenager’s case would remain in juvenile court or be considered for transfer to adult court.
For Grove’s relatives, the technical evidence represents a path toward answers after they did much of the first urgent searching themselves. Family members located the truck, saw the apparent blood and helped establish that Grove’s absence was not routine. Months later, they told local reporters that the loss continued to affect the family and that they wanted the justice process to move forward.
The digital case will ultimately depend on more than the fact that phones generated records. Prosecutors would need to connect the devices to people, place the information in an accurate timeline and prove the charged conduct beyond a reasonable doubt. Defense attorneys may test how the data was collected and what conclusions can fairly be drawn from it. Until those questions are resolved in court, Riley and her son remain accused, not convicted.
Author note: Last updated Aug. 3, 2026.